tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX June 16, 2013 10:00am-11:01am PDT
$19 a month with qualifying bundles. rethink possible. i'm chris wallace. the nsa laker, traitor or patriot. dick cheney weighs in today on government surveillance. >> as to the individual who admitted to making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. >> the feds pursue edward snowden who told the guardian newspaper. >> i certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone, even the president if i had a personal e e-mail. >> his disclosures renew a debate about the balance between security and civil liberty.
>> it is my fear we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state. >> i want to catch terrorists but what vaets them is the rule of law. >> we are trying to be transparent, protect civil liberties and the security of the country. >> we'll ask about the nsa surveillance programs. it's a "fox news sunday" exclusive. then the white house says it will arm the syrian rebels. after confirming bashar assad used chemical weapons. >> we have decided to take an additional step forward in providing increase eed assistance. >> simply providing weapons will not change the battlefield equation. we must change the battlefield equation. >> we'll ask the sunday panel if the lethal aide is a game changer or too little, too late. all now on "fox news sunday". >> hello again. happy father's day from fox news in washington. for much of the eight years dick cheney was a heartbeat from the
presidency, he was the driving force behind increased government surveillance as part of the war on terror. in the next segment we'll ask the former vice president about the changing u.s. policy on syria and the obama administration scandals. we want to begin by discussing the revelations about sweeping nsa data collection and the renewed debate about whether it's an invasion of privacy. vice president dick cheney, welcome back. >> good to be back, chris. >> let's start with edwardsnowden, the private contractor who disclosed the programs to the world. here is how he justified his actions. >> eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public, not by somebody who is hired by the government. when you are subverting the power of government that's a dangerous thing to democracy. >> what do you think of edward snowden? >> i think he's a traitor. i think he has committed crimes in effect by violating
agreements given the position he had. he was a contractor employee, but he obviously was granted top secret clearance. i think it's one of the worst occasions in my memory of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the united states. >> we believe snowden is in hong kong and apparently givinging the chinese information about alleged u.s. cyberhacking into chinese computers. do you think he was a spy all along for the chinese? do you think he's using this information to try to buy asylum from the chinese and how firm should the u.s. government be with the chinese about turning this guy back to us? >> i'm suspicious because he went to china. that's not a place where you would ordinarily want to go if you are interested in freedom, liberty and so forth. it raises questions whether or not he had that kind of connection before he did this.
the other concern i have is whether or not he had help from inside the agency. that is to say was there somebody else in nsa who had access to a lot of this stuff and passed it to him. that's presumably one of the things to look at in the course of the investigation. i am very, very worried that he still has additional information that he hasn't released yet, that the chinese would welcome the opportunity and probably willing to provide immunity for him or sanctuary for him, if you will, in exchange for what hen' know. it will be a continuing problem. i don't think this is a one-off disclosure. i think there is a danger that he'll go beyond that. i have trouble believing somebody in his position as a contract employee had access to the things he's talking about. >> you don't think he was acting alone? >> i don't know. you have to ask that question. >> what about the u.s. chinese relationship. we saw president obama meet with
president xi in palm springs last weekend, supposedly trying to rebuild a relationship. how much should we put that relationship on the line to demand that they turn snowden back to us? >> well, i think you need to be very aggressive about it. i'm not sure it will do any good. it depends, obviously, on whether or not the chinese believes he has value from an intelligence standpoint. i have to believe they will work that angle first before they decide whether or not to turn him over. >> since the leaks there's been a lot of criticism of the nsa program from both the right and left. i want to focus on conservatives though. people like senator rand paul who says, fine, let the government target terrorists but leave law abiding americans alone. take a look. >> this is what we objected to and what our founding fathers fought the revolution over. they didn't want generalized warrants to go house to house with soldiers looking for things or now from computer to
computer, phone to phone, without specifying who you are targeting. >> question. is senator paul wrong? >> i believe he is. two-thirds of the congress today, chris, wasn't here. the reason we got into it was because they had been attacked. worse attack than pearl harbor. 19 guys armed with box cutters and airline tickets. the worry is the next attack, sooner or later there will be another attack and they will have deadlier weapons. we have to consider the possibility of a nuclear device or biological agent. we made the decisioned based on 9/11 that we no longer had a law enforcement problem, we are at war. congress authorized the president to use military force to deal with the crisis. that puts you in the category of using your military assets, intelligence assets and so forth
to protect the country against another attack. when you consider somebody smuggling a nuclear device into the united states it becomes very important to gather intelligence on your enemies and stop the attack before it is launched. >> let me ask you the question raund paan raising. fine, if you have reason the to suspect bad guys go after their e-mails and numbers, but why do you have to vacuum information on every law abiding american in the country? >> first, what information? the answer is phone numbers. who contacted whom. we don't have names associated. it's just a big bag of numbers that have been collected. >> he still says it's an intrusion. >> i don't believe it is. in fact, that's not private information. according to the supreme court those are business records of the telephone company. you don't go into that box of numbers, if you will, the look for connections unless you brngk
up a suspicious number. you have bin laden in abbottabad and pakistan. you look at the cell phones, see whatmbersad connections into the united states. by preserving that database you are able to come back, check and see if they have been talking to somebody inside. as everybody has been associated with the program said if we had this before 9/11 when there were two terrorists in san diego, two hijackers able to use that program, that capability against the target we might have been able to prevent 9/11. the allegation is out there that somehow we've got all this personal information on aunt fanny or chris wallace or whoever it might be and reported through it. that's not the way it works. mike hayden was involved in setting it up. keith alexander is a superb guy.
both now running the program. we have collected a lot of numbers, but they are business records and the phone companies have been determined by the supreme court not to be private individual records, the way they are often described by critics. >> let's assume that's right. why does this have to be kept so secret? terrorists clearly assume we trying to intercept their phone calls and e-mails. so why not let the american public know the outlines, the general program? obviously not sources, methods and how you go in and the algorithms and all of that. but the blueprint, the outline of the program so we can debate it. >> well, i have problems with respect to that concern. i understand people's concern about it. but an intelligence program that does reveal sources and methods which is what you're talking
about is significantly less effective because you are not just revealing it to the american people. you're revealing it to your targets, your adversaries, to the enemy. there are reasons for secrecy is in conduct of intelligence operations. when we set up the program in the weeks after '01. we briefed members of congress in my office in the west wing. mike hayden, george tenet and we'd give them the lay out of what we were doing and what we were learning. we did it for the elected leadership of the congress, both parties, both houses. we had senior officials in congress and the courts who read into the program and knew what we were doing and in effect signed off on it. i went to ask the big nine in spring of 2004 and the briefing. first we briefed them and said should we continue the program and they said absolutely yes. uh we said should we ego to congress for additional legislation. they said absolutely not, it
will leak. those were senior leaders in the congress. >> what right do you think the american people have to know what government is doing? >> they get to vote if senior officials like the senior officials of the united states and in congress. you have to have trust in them. you don't go out when you have an intelligence operation trying to collect data and tell the enemy what you're doing. it would be a dumb idea. it makes the program significantly less e effective and reveals to adversaries crucial information they shouldn't have. >> let me ask you about that. top u.s. intelligence officials released more information to try to explain and defend the programs. they released it saturday. they say data from the programs help break up terror plots in the u.s. and 20 other countries. last year they say fewer than 300 phone numbers were checked against the huge database and all of the data is destroyed
every five years. given the leaks, given that information, do you think it provides useful information to our enemies? >> i think it does. we have now laid out they have no choice. i don't quarrel with what they are putting out. they are forced to put it out because an individual, in this case snowden the, took it upon himself to determine the united states no longer needed to maintain this secret. you can't operate that way. it doesn't function. if you think about what we were able to do in world war ii, reading ultra, the german's coded communications, vital in our success in that venture. we could have announced it to the world, had this kind of debate but it would have destroyed the ability to collect it. you are telling your adversary about your methods, sources and how we are reading their mail. now the threat isn't just overseas or a foreign power.
the threat now is terrorists coming back into the united states using deadlier e weapons than ever before to launch an attack. we have to know what they are doing, who they are in contact with in the united states. this program allows us -- the way it was set up and the reason it's been o is because we could capture a terrorist and get the information he was talking to. when you had the hijackers in 9/11 they were in contact with their leadership overseas and the rest of the organization in the states. if we had been able to read their mail and intercept communications and pick up from the calls overseas the numbers here that they were using in the united states we would then have been able to thwart the attack. >> when he was running for president in 2008 barack obama talked about what he called the false choice between liberty and security. when this program was ve vealed
last week he said, well, i scrubbed a lot of what i inherited from you. let's take a look. >> i came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. my team evaluated them. we scrubbed them thoroughly. we expanded some of the oversight. increased some of the safeguards. >> how much has president obama scrubbed what you guys gave him? >> i don't know. obviously i've not been in the loop on classified information since i left the white house. but one of the keys for me, chris, is i know keith alexander. he's one of the finest -- >> head of the national security agency. >> now in charge of the program. i know mike hayden well, his predecessor. mike became cia director. i worked with mike hayden when we set up the program. he came to me, he and george
tenet. we said there were additional things we could gather if we had more authority. i took it to the president and he signed off on it with strict limitations and restrictions on what we could do. these men are as fine officers as you will find in the united states military. i have met a lot of them over the years. i trust them with my life. >> what do you make of -- >> what i make of what the saying is they are to be believed. they are good honest americans, patriotic and they care about their responsibility to safe guard civil liberties. >> what do you make of the president suggesting, well i had to scrub up what they left me? >> i don't pay attention to a lot of what barack obama says. i find a lot of it in irs, benghazi, not credible. i'm not a fan of the incumbent president. i don't know what he did to the program. the program obviously from what's now been released is still in operation. i think it's good that it is in
operation. it has, in fact, saved lives and kept e us free from other attacks. >> one last question in this area. some critics say there is a disconnect between the president defending vast surveillance as he had since it was revealed and remarked in which he seemed to indicate the war on terror is winding down. take a look. >> our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. but this war like all wars must end. >> couple of questions. first of all, what do you think of the president suggesting where we are now in the war on terror and as he put it we are at a crossroads. doesn't it make it harder to justify mass surveillance if the war on terror is winding down? >> first of all, he's wrong. it's not winding down. if you look at the part of the world available as safe harbor, sanctuary for terrorists to launch attacks against the
united states it runs across north africa. the places the muslim brotherhood have come to power. the tret is bigger than ever. the biggest problem is proriff litigation of weapons of mass destruction. we are all concerned about syria. think if the north korean-built react tor, we had have a huge mess. bin laden may be dead but we have al qaeda affiliates out there. benghazi is proof positive that al qaeda is operating in libya. he's wrong on the status of the threat. in terms of credibility, i don't think he has it. we have an important point where the president of the united states ought to say, this is a good program, saving american lives and i support it. the problem is the guy failed to be forthright and honest and
credible on things like benghazi and the irs. he's got to credibility. >> we'll take a break. when we come back, we'll discuss mr. obama's decision to arm the syrian rebels as well as scandals involving the irs and benghazi. much more with dick cheney when we come back. : help the gulf recover, and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world.
president dick cheney. the white house announced late this week that it has reversed policy and that it is going to start sending the syrian rebels small arms and possibly anti-tank weapons. they also made clear what they won't do. take a look. >> we don't at this point believe the u.s. has a national interest in pursuing a very intense, open-ended military engagement through a no-fly zone in syria at this juncture. >> is it wise for the president to get involved at all in syria at this point? is this enough? generally speaking, looking back, how do you think the president handled syria over the two years of the civil war? >> i don't think it's been well handled. i will be the first to admit it's a difficult, complex situation. i think john mccain has it just about right. we don't always agree on everything. we have had debates over the years but john has pretty well nailed it.
now we are to the point where it's hard to understand that it's the use of chemical weapons that triggered this result. s as john said the other way, there were 93,000 people killed not affected by chemical weapons. where was the concern then? it's not clear to me what the mission is. is it strictly humanitarian? geo strategic? does the united states have an interest in the outcome? are we potentially involved in some kind of proxy war with the sov ye soviets or the russians supporting assad? is it important assad go down? my instinct would have been if you cared about it, you had an opportunity to provide support with american forces directly involved. now they are going to do it. the question is if they are a day late and a dollar short.
>> what about no-fly zones, stand-off strikes on syrian airstrips and things to eliminate their air superiority? >> jack keen said on the network -- >> former general. >> former general. close friend of mine, a great guy. from a military standpoint of being able to accomplish something objectively that might provide success, the no-fly zone, is what he would recommend. that's not without potential cost obviously. syria has a sophisticated anti-air capability. sophisticated ground to air missiles. so it's a problem. i think it's important for the administration to come back and specify what is the u.s. national interest here? it seems to be the only reason you're going is now you have evidence that they used chemical weapons and killed 150 people with chemical weapons. is that our national interest? i'm not sure they have it straight in their minds what the
objective is. >> let's talk about benghazi. there is a general principle in the military no one left behind. after benghazi, then secretary of defense leon panetta said it wasn't possible given the specific circumstances during the terror attacks in benghazi. basic principle is you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on. without having real time information about what's taking place. >> given the circumstances and what we have been told about the deployment of forces, was there a decision by the pentagon and the president not oh to send forces on the ground. was that an appropriate decision or not? >> i don't think it was. my experience in that part of the world was where we
anticipated with al qaeda may try to mark the anniversary with an attack, especially in a location where they had an enormous amount of intelligence. you get the broadcast. the first thing that comes out is the ambassador saying they are under attack. we were alway prepared. had groups and organizations, teams ready to go operate at the drop of a hat and practice exactly that kind of operation. i found it difficult to reconcile leon. i like him. he's a good man. to reconcile his statement that we couldn't have done anything. they could have been ready before the crisis developed. it's an hour away. >> that's the air base. >> a nato base. they've got to be ready in libya of all places. the military has the capability
and use it. what do you think of the president's decision to name susan rice to be his national security adviser. >> she e appears to have been part of the cover-up. one thing that concerned him was a political issue. the whole notion that it was a terrorist attack under mined the narrative that they solved the problem. we got bin laden terrorism problem solved. she went out and peddled the party line that was put together at the state department. i think it was a huge mistake. i think she lacks credibility. she doesn't need to be confirmed. she can go in there as a national security adviser. i questioned whether or not somebody whose judgment was so flawed that they took what was apparently bad information and peddled it as aggressively as she did.
>> let's turn to the irs targeting of conservative groups with the name tea party or patriot or 9/12 in their name. there are conflicting stories os to whether this was in cincinnati or whether it came from higher ups. no evidence. no hard evidence of involvement by treasury or the white house. at least so far. as someone who's been around this town a while, what do you make of the irs scandal? >> it's one of the worst abuses of power imaginable when you think of the power of the irs. it clearly was used to go after a particular category. my side of the political spectr spectrum. regardless of who it was this is the gross abuse of oh power everybody is concerned about. i think i have trouble believing two guysn cincinnati dreamed
this scheme up. i don't think it's true. i don't often talk about it, but i was involved in the wage condoleezza rice control in the nixon years. i was the director of operations. i had to oversee 3,000 irs agents trying to enforce wage price control. it was a professional organization. they worked hard to take rules and regulations written by the cost of living council and implement them in the field. i have trouble -- it was a long time ago. i have trouble believing that the professionalism i observed in that organization would be doing that. some guys on their own picking out a political class to go after that they would do it without -- [ cell phone ringing ] >> mrs. cheney is givinging you a call. that's a first on fox.
>> right. like they would do an example here. i personally believe i cannot conceive of a situation it didn't come from higher up. >> the other scandal now is the justice department raising the possibility of prosecuting james rosen of fox news for his role in revealing what seems to have been national security classified information. in 2006 -- i love the way you're checking it -- >> turning it off. >> i thought you were seeing who was calling. >> making sure it didn't go off. >> in 2006 there were reports you raised the possibility of prosecuting a new york times reporter. james risen -- not rosen -- for breaking the story that the bush administration had ordered and was engaged in warrantless wiretaps. first, is it true? did you consider the prosecution of james risen of the new york times?
secondly, what is your general philosophy about whether or not reporters can, should, are liable for criminal prosecution for exposing national security secrets? >> i was not advocating prosecuting risen. i thought the new york times violated the law because there is a provision that says it is a felony offense to publish information about communications intelligence in the united states. it's never been enforced. it's a felony calling if a sentence of ten years to do that. >> prosecuted the new york times? >> i urged that we ought to investigate. either the law is the law or it isn't. it's never been enforced. nobody had the nerve to go after the new york times. it's on the books. >> i thought in this case obviously -- now i'm a hard rock on some things. it's proenl wise that others said they don't want to prosecute the new york times.
it's publication of communication intel jesligence has never been enforced. >> you think it should be. >> or take it off the books. it was never aimed at the reporter. the new york times was asked by the president of the united states with a publisher, editor and the washington bureau chief in the oval office and he asked them not to publish this. it will do damage to the national security and they did it anyway. >> finally, your health. >> yes, sir. >> you got a heart transplant 15 months ago. what are you able to do now that you were not able to do before the transplant. secondly, i don't expect you to get warm and fuzzy. what does it mean in a deeper sense to have a new lease on life, literally? >> yeah. well, it's nothing short of a miracle, chris. i owe a deep debt to the donor
and the donor family. i was near death. i was in end stage heart failure, liver and kidneys shutting down and on an emergency basis they planted a pump in my chest. it was battery operated. it kept me alive for 20 months. that got me to the transplant. i wake up every morning now with a smile on my face, thankful for the gift of another day. i never expected to see it. >> mr. vice president, always a pleasure to talk with you. >> good to see you. >> happy father's day. >> you, too. >> many more to us both. >> all right. >> up next, whether the plan to arm the syrian rebels will do anything to level the playing field in that civil war. we went out and asked people a simple question:
how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed much is the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪
[ male announcer ] for our families... our neighbors... and our communities... america's beverage companies have created a wide range of new choices. developing smaller portion sizes and more low- & no-calorie beverages... adding clear calorie labels so you know exactly what you're choosing... and in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks with lower-calorie options. with more choices and fewer calories, america's beverage companies are delivering.
we didn't have u-verse back in my day. you couldn't just... guys... there you are. you know you couldn't just pause a show in one room, then... where was i... you couldn't pause a show in one room then start playing it in another. and...i'm talking to myself... [ male announcer ] call to get u-verse tv for just $19 a month for 2 years with qualifying bundles. rethink possible. make a wish! i wish we could lie here forever. i wish this test drive was over, so we could head back to the dealership. [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. test drive! [ male announcer ] but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a jetta. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today.
for us to sit by and watch these people being massacred, raped, tortured in the most terrible fashion, meanwhile the russians are all in. hezbollah is all in. and we are talking about giving them more light weapons? i mean, it's insane. >> senator john mccain strong in his criticism of the president's decision to arm the syrian rebels. much too little, much too late. it's time for our sunday group. former democratic congresswoman jane harmon. karl rove, and fox news political analyst ron williams. the wall street journal has an editorial this weekend.
let's put it on the screen. dabblinging in syria, obama arm it is rebels, but not enough to defeat assad and his patrons. do they have a point? is the president dabbling. >> the situation is so advanced in a bad way. that it would take more than what he's apparently prepared to do to change the complexion of the conflict. in turn that means the big talk about red lines and so on may be for naught, even if he tries to do something. that means the word of the president of the united states who presides over the great superpower of the world when it comes to an issue like this isn't worth much. he isn't prepared to back it up with effective action. i think that's a loss for him. for the country if that's how it plays out. >> congresswoman, even bill clinton was turning on president obama this week at a private event with john mccain he was
quoted as saying president obama would look like, quote, a total fool -- clinton's words -- if he paid too much attention to the polls and didn't get involved in syria. did the president wait too long? >> i think so. by the way, i disagree with what the vice president said about susan rice. i agree with his comments about the need for a strategy around what we are doing in syria. the president let broenen roads announce what we are going to do. this is something he should have explained against what else is going on in the middle east and what we did in libya. i think we should be doing this. i gather in jordan we'll leave a few f-16s behind just in case more comes of the strategy. i'm a little bit worried about john mccain's idea about some form of no-fly zone. there are chemical weapons on the ground. being aggressive in syria will
help us get to the peace table with russia and persuade the iranians and north koreans we mean what we say. >> karl? >> we are two year too late. in august president obama said it was time for assad to go. we have done little to make him go since then e. as a result our credibility in the region is damaged. light weapons might have had a big impact two years ago. i'm dubious of the impact it will have now. we don't know all of what may be brought into the battlefield. the gulf states have supplied weapons to trebles. this is -- i'm with brit on the question of the american credibility. we had the announcement that the iranians are send eing 4,000 revolutionary guard who is may already be in sight. hezbollah out of lebanon helped open several new fronts inside the country. the iranian revolutionary guard are talking about creating a
front by attacking israel. american action two years ago might have made for a more stable situation today. i'm concerned that it's way too little, way too late. >> let's pick up on that one. a lot of people are calling this halfway no no-fly zone, no air strikes. no anti-aircraft weapons at this point. no anti-tank, but that apparently is a possibility. small weapons and ammunition. what can he accomplish with that at this late day? >> it's a forced multiplier is the word from the white house. as jane said the president didn't own this. this is coming from ben rhoads, his top assistant. >> what do you make of the fact that the president doesn't announce the change in policy and lets a deputy national security officer. >> when you look at the polls
the american people do not want the united states to get involved in another war in the middle east. that's clear. in this era we are pulling out of two wars. the notion of investing in the united states, that's where the focus should be. the idea of oh forced multiplier is key. the ideof leaving the f-16s in jordan. the idea of going to northern ireland and reaching out now to russian leader putin and talking to him about what it means in terms of the middle east threats to jordan with the refugees and israel and makinging it clear to the europeans that the united states is playing a lead role that for the united states isn't disengaged but acting as a leader and the united states will not allow the rebels to lose. once you say that by sending the weapons you open it to negotiation. >> number one, i hope you are right and what he does does
change everything. the worry is it doesn't. look. if the united states wants credibility on these issues, let me go back to the question chris asked you. we hear from ben rhoads, a relatively invisible figure. an important one on the national security council. you mentioned the polls. every president is constrained by that and should be, by public opinion. on these foreign policy issues where it involves engagement in a military conflict the polls are seldom at the outset going to be in favor of people. this is an area where presidents have to lead. they lead by what they do and what they say. let's go back to the first gulf war. does anybody think when iraq invaded kuwait there was sentiment in the united states in fehr of american military involvement? of course not. that president bush said this will not stand. i was covering the white house at time. i couldn't believe he said it. as he led, opinion turned around.
by the time the conflict was engaged -- [ all speaking at once ] >> i want to bring in congresswoman harmon. you mentioned trying to get to an international conference. starting tomorrow the g-8 summit in northern ireland. the white house is talking about on the same page with the british and french who have been ahead of us. he's going to meet with putin and have a negotiated settlement. if you look at the situation, you think he'll persuade vladimir putin to give up on assad? >> so far we have nowhere, but let's remember bosnia. that's what i was going to bring up under bill clinton. we were involved in an air campaign and bombing. that led to a negotiated settlement. >> we're not doing either. >> not yet. i have reservations because of the chemical weapons. we haven't shown that we are tough yet. john kerry seems aggressive and
will be at the g-8 meeting, i assume. his negotiation with lavrov is critical -- his counterpart. >> the russians will pay him no attention -- >> karl, they don't bank on bashar staying. if they think bashar will fall, they will intervene. this is a great reset moment for putin. [ all speaking at once ] >> they have spent two years arming assad and keeping him in power. they will continue to do it. >> the iranians, too. >> they are in and hezbollah is in. we are kidding ourselves if we think there will be a magic moment in dublin -- belfast, excuse me -- where the irish ancestors of president obama will give him the blarney to bring -- >> oh -- >> we'll take a break. when we come back, inside the secret nsa act. did edward snowden help us understand what our government is up to or compromise our security?
the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ vo: i've always thought the best part about this country is that we get to create our future. you get to take ownership of the choices you make. the person you become. i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged.
they're not sitting by as their life unfolds. and they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. check out fox news sunday.com for behind-the-scenes features, panel plus and our special monday preview of the week ahead. you can find it at foxnewssunday.com. let us know what you think. stay tuned for more from our panel.
this is, a, incredibly damaging and, b, there should be no notion in anyone's mind that this person is a traitor to the united states of america. >> we know eventually when people are given too much power in government they will abuse that authority for me the fars purposes, sometimes political purposes. taste of the debate going on inside both parties about the wisdom of the government cease sweeping surveillance programs. congresswoman harmon is the top democrat on house intelligence. where do you come down on the basic idea of these nsa programs and how do you respond to critics who say it is too intrusive on millions of americans minding their own business? >> i think this is one of the rare and true victory laps that congress can take because congress is the place that amended the foreign intelligence
surveillance act in 2008 to bring these programs clearly under the law and it works with a foreign intelligence surveillance court composed of 11 federal judges who rotate in and out. full disclosure or massive disclosure to congress. and then an executive branch which can't do anything unless the courts approve and congress oversees. this is a separation of powers and there are folks in congress who disagree with the breadth of this program. i think it should be debated. maybe it can be narrowed. but it has been sunsetted. all the provisions that relate to this. the business records provision and the fisa amendments renewed by congress every three years. it protects our country. i do agree with mike rogers that this compromise, this leaker has potentially hurt us in national security terms. >> karl, let's talk about the republicans. there was a debate within the democrats. how do you feel about
republicans from rand paul to mike lee to james sensenbruner, one of the authors of the patriot act saying this is too intrusive? >> i respect that. if you can be a civil libertarian and both parties feel that way. you have to be consistent. if you don't like the program which we now know was accessed 300 times last yea you have be against local law enforcement being able to access routinely business records of the telephone company and their local investigations as well. you cannot turn on a cop drama on television where there is nos somebody pinging somebody's cell phone or looking at the phone calls made from some land line or telephone both to help solve crime on television. it is routinely done in a large scale at the local law enforcement level. the difference is that apparently this program holds onto records for five years. we don't know how long each phone company makes it
available. this one requires a warrant to be able to search the record of any american. you can monitor the foreign communications without a warrant. in order to search the database you have to have a warrant issued by one of the fisa court judges. that doesn't happen with the local law enforcement which can get a trace on a phone or give you the connection of a phone number. how many times have we sent the police to a hotel on route 1 because we searched the phone record? you have to be consistent. >> have you ever been in that hotel? >> i'm concerned about that. >> as i recall it was somebody named wallace. a well known drug dealer or something. >> yeah. then there is the man who disclosed the secrets. private contractor edward snowden, 25 years old, holed up now in hong kong. we are told givinging the chinese a lot of information. we don't know if it's true or not about u.s. cyber hacking of
chinese and hong kong computers. what do you make of him? >> young people are thrilled with ed snowden. they have made him a hero, a martyr. this guy is no daniel elsburg. >> you need to explain to the young people who that is. >> you're hurting me, buddy. he was the one who orchestrated the release of the pentagon papers to neil sheehan at the new york times. the difference is this was not about revealing corruption or lies by government or anything like that. he was revealing secrets that had to do with effective programs to battle terrorists. in this age of anti-terrorism. so, to me, i think this is a guy who took an oath when he said he was going to work as a government contractor for nsa and he broke that oath. i don't think that's a martyr or a hero. i think that's in the category of traitor. he should be prosecuted.
if point is we need a debate about secrecy and the balance between civil liberty and national security. that should take place far more than in 2002 when we passed the patriot act. only one senator voted against it, russ finegold of wisconsin. there was such emotion. we need to fight terrorists. now to go back and say, oh, you know what? we didn't know about it. we knew about it all along. we have known about it clearly since 2006. everybody knows about it. this is a shochblgt -- shock. >> i think it turns out that what was true about what edward snowden revealed wasn't new. in fact, i was reading a lengthy usa today story today from may of 2006 which laid the whole thing out.
nsa, telephone records, massive gathering of them and so on to be searched later. the whole thing has been in the public domain. his claims about what he could do from his desk and reading e-mails and all of that? much doubt has been cast on that. a lot of what was said wasn't true. you put those things together and this is much ado about not much and much ado about not much of a guy. he didn't reveal anything that wasn't known that was true and a lot of what he said wasn't true. we should not pay so uh mumuch attention to edward snowden e. >> i'm e glad you said that at the end of the program. >> this guy was dangerous. there may be -- >> we have known about it since 2006. >> there may be more records turned over if he used a thumb drive. this is a wake up for our clearance process. he got in --
>> -- employees of contracts have -- half a million -- have top secret clearance. >> he was in one of the most important jobs. these i.t. administrators in charge, even at 29, ought to be federal employees with supervision over them. this guy was one inch ahead of the sheriff in five jobs. he should have been blinking red. >> in china he's saying he knows about protocols used. u.s. hacking chinese institutions and the like. >> we don't know if it's true or not. >> why is he doing business with the chinese? is he a spy? >> who knows? >> it may be clever disinformation to send him into the chinese system to mislead them. i want him prosecuted. but this is a minor player. this stuff is largely out in 2006. both programs were described. >> thank you, panel. don't forget to check out panel plus where the group picks up
with the discussion on our website, foxnewssunday.com. follow us on twitte twitter @foxnewssunday. up next, we hear from you. every day we're working to be an even better company - and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.
warrant. not a massive garnering of all records. not right. on wallace watch, al d. writes, the issue is people don't trust the federal government at this point. the obama administration has shown it is partisan and doesn't appear to respect the constitutional limits. a mix of opinions on facebook. this one from ken gambrell -- this is to protect us. this guy that let it out is a traitor. laura rodriguez says if it helps terrorist attacks like 9/11 i'm all for it. i have nothing to hide. that's it for us. happy father's day to the dads out there. to my kids, call your old man today. have a great week. see you next "fox news sunday." look at them kids. [ sigh ]
they have no idea what it was like before u-verse high speed internet. yeah, you couldn't just stream movies to a device like that. one time, i had to wait half a day to watch a movie. you watched movies?! i was lucky if i could watch a show. show?! man, i was happy to see a sneezing panda clip! trevor, have you eaten today? you sound a little grumpy. [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] connect all your wi-fi-enabled devices with u-verse high speed internet. rethink possible.
>> female announcer: the following is a paid presentation for murad resurgence, the groundbreaking skin care line that is backed by four good housekeeping seals. millions of women all over the world already trust their skin to murad resurgence. and now, the resurgence line just got better, because for the first time ever we're going to give you our brand-new resurgence firming mask, absolutely free! >> male announcer: the resurgence firming mask just hit the shelves a few months ago and is already a customer favorite. why? because it has the power to soften lines and firm your skin in just 10 minutes. >> female announcer: that's right, 10 minutes.